We need another Housing purge

[Awha]

The the thing is we've been told repeatedly that should we desire a change on SE's end, we should make a fuss about it here on the forum. This is why multiple threads have lasted for a year or longer, such as the Viera race thread or the Nier Automata costume thread.

In some cases, the loud mouths of the player base have brought about change, such as the additional housing wards beyond the scope of Shirogane.

Players who are dissatisfied should speak up, regardless of what is or isn't against the rules. However the rules themselves are also up for discussion.

Do not think anyone is against bringing up issues with the current system or the rules. Issue lies with those who also want SE to punish players retroactively for policies and or rules that may or may not exist within the current frame work that have no history of being enforced.

[Freyt]

Do not think anyone is against bringing up issues with the current system or the rules. Issue lies with those who also want SE to punish players retroactively for policies and or rules that may or may not exist within the current frame work that have no history of being enforced.

I don't think the goal here for anyone is punishment, though what you consider to be punishment may be someone else's goal. It's simply a guess, but I imagine most players consider it "correct" for a single player not to have multiple houses. For some of these players, it would be "correct" for SE to take away those additional houses. This is not a punishment, but a correction in what is currently incorrect, and has nothing to do with the player themselves that is responsible in some way for this incorrect situation.

I think many would be fine for a player that is behaving "incorrectly" to simply be corrected, and not banned or punished otherwise.

Many are posing their own form of correction disregarding the player, to remove the incentive for a player to perform in that incorrect manner, rather than to simply "police" the behavior. I think flaws and merits can be seen in both corrections, and perhaps they can be used together in some capacity.

This thread didn't start out about any specific player. It took specific player(s) themselves to make it about themselves for discussions about those specific player(s) to arise. At the end of the day no one cares what strangers are punished or not, only that justice and truth prevail, and that all systems are running smoothly.

[Awha]

I don't think the goal here for anyone is punishment, though what you consider to be punishment may be someone else's goal. It's simply a guess, but I imagine most players consider it "correct" for a single player not to have multiple houses. For some of these players, it would be "correct" for SE to take away those additional houses. This is not a punishment, but a correction in what is currently incorrect, and has nothing to do with the player themselves that is responsible in some way for this incorrect situation.

I think many would be fine for a player that is behaving "incorrectly" to simply be corrected, and not banned or punished otherwise.

Many are posing their own form of correction disregarding the player, to remove the incentive for a player to perform in that incorrect manner, rather than to simply "police" the behavior. I think flaws and merits can be seen in both corrections, and perhaps they can be used together in some capacity.

This thread didn't start out about any specific player. It took specific player(s) themselves to make it about themselves for discussions about those specific player(s) to arise. At the end of the day no one cares what strangers are punished or not, only that justice and truth prevail, and that all systems are running smoothly.

I get what you are saying, but SE already grandfathered players from the old system into the new system when 4.2 hit, so if SE were to change their view regarding the current housing it would only be fair to grandfather players into the new rule set. I also agree many players are asking for a change in policy (which I personally do think is needed, our current system is simply not sustainable), but some are asking for both a change in policy and retroactive punishment, my issues lies with those few players. Either way I do hope with 5.0 SE does do something with the housing system.

[Alleo]

Do not think anyone is against bringing up issues with the current system or the rules. Issue lies with those who also want SE to punish players retroactively for policies and or rules that may or may not exist within the current frame work that have no history of being enforced.

When someone states that they got the housing through transfer (which is only necessary if you cant get houses through regular means) that quite hints that this was done while the rules were active. And SE can and should look into such cases and see when these people got their houses and if they used an unintended loophole (because SE only wanted us to own one FC and private house per world and account) then they are going against the wish itself that was stated through these rules and should be punished. And after that they could finally go and state that the rules are back and anyone getting more no matter how they did it will get their houses taken away. Would be quite simple imo.

About maintenance: How about we create a situation where something like housing which has quite some options and items behind it, is there for everyone? Instead of going around and punishing the housing owners for SE "great" idea of making it not instanced..I am also quite sure that those that missuse the system are probably those that wont be hurt by such a fee or will just use RMT or botting to get enough Gil for it. While you will hurt anyone who just really wants to own a house for their own reasons. Increase the price of each plot when you buy it but let it be all..another fee will just split the people even more and we house owners are already forced to sub and go into the game every 45 days to keep it so we cant just take a longer break without losing that..

And lets not forget that everyone has a different view on what a good fee would be...make it too low and its nothing but a unnecessary second step to owning a house and make it too high and this would take many people away from it and maybe even just create another rage in the community. What if you own a house, are fine with the idea but suddenly they chose a fee that is way over the price you can pay? What if you are on a server that has a bad economy? How are these people making the necessary Gil? What if you are on a server with known bots that destroy markets? A fee just further protects SEs decision to make this not instanced.

[Awha]

When someone states that they got the housing through transfer (which is only necessary if you cant get houses through regular means) that quite hints that this was done while the rules were active. And SE can and should look into such cases and see when these people got their houses and if they used an unintended loophole (because SE only wanted us to own one FC and private house per world and account) then they are going against the wish itself that was stated through these rules and should be punished. And after that they could finally go and state that the rules are back and anyone getting more no matter how they did it will get their houses taken away. Would be quite simple imo..

Where I am coming from is if what was being done was truly an issue for SE, wouldn't they have done / said something by now? I have not been playing this game for all that long, started around the tail end of HW, but I do not think I have ever recalled SE ever making an official statement on the forums or loadstone regarding the issues around housing. So would it not be safe to assume they have no issue with it, and if by some means they have a change of heart and claim they have an issue with it so long after the fact then no it would not be fair of SE to take away players houses since at the time they clearly did not care enough to act on the issue.

Do not get me wrong SE is free to do whatever they please since it is their IP / game. Overall just voicing my own concerns on the matter.